Ground handling - challenges
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground handling - challenges
Ground handling challenges,
I've been reading some threads on this forum recently. Also, I've been reading about the ongoing work at Flight Safety Foundation - GAP (Ground accident prevention). They point out that about $10billions are yearly spent due to ground handling incidents. Therefore, I'm wondering if the users on this forum could tell me what they feel are the major challenges in ground handling - and especially ramp handling?
Looking forward to hear from you all.
Cheers.
I've been reading some threads on this forum recently. Also, I've been reading about the ongoing work at Flight Safety Foundation - GAP (Ground accident prevention). They point out that about $10billions are yearly spent due to ground handling incidents. Therefore, I'm wondering if the users on this forum could tell me what they feel are the major challenges in ground handling - and especially ramp handling?
Looking forward to hear from you all.
Cheers.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Push every flight on time, not just push the other end curfewed flights 30 mins early
It might be your last flight before you knock off 2 hours early, 1/ it faces a huge fine, 2/ as the Ops guy I have told you time and time again about this 3/ when we do get fined hope it comes outta yours and the Crews wages
4/ same for the wasted Jet A1 at what ever end pushing and holding or landing and waiting and 5/ any bugger hang around to see if it comes back for any reason!
It might be your last flight before you knock off 2 hours early, 1/ it faces a huge fine, 2/ as the Ops guy I have told you time and time again about this 3/ when we do get fined hope it comes outta yours and the Crews wages
4/ same for the wasted Jet A1 at what ever end pushing and holding or landing and waiting and 5/ any bugger hang around to see if it comes back for any reason!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mbeats
Could not resist the post above.
With regard to ground strikes to aircraft, afraid the biggest change needed is honesty by ground staff.
In my 20 ish years in Ops, the most common response from 'Ramp Management' from catering to handlers after a ground strike has been 'he's suspended till we sack him tomorrow'
Just does not foster honesty from the poor sod at the wheel. I dont, and I am sure most, if not all Crew dont want that attitude on the ramp.
Nudge, tickle, dent, rip the skin of an aircraft or not be sure, tell someone and let the engineers decide. Live in fear of the sack, who knows what might happen.
Educate the Managers would be a big improvement.
BTW, had one tickled, somewhat nudged at EGxx some time ago. Airfield Ops saw the whole thing happen, break lights and all. Airfield Ops reported it to me and vehicle owner. Usual response from vehicle owner, Airfield Ops report, vehicle found to have defective breaks, all before the driver could own up to a ground strike. Vehicle owner back-peddling like mad.
No whitch hunt blame culture for the ramp staff, might not reduce the cost to the industry, but be a good start.
Post edit,
Mind you to educate anyone on the ramp, two sprung to mind over a fag from 88-89
1/ Right in front of the office, watched with witnesses and in awe as an unmarked Luton van rocked a BE90. got security to stop it, backed it up to what was left of the wingtip to hear 'didn't think it mattered, it was only a small one.' On seeing the damage to the van 'what's the Boss gonna say now'
Never did find out the insurance answer to that one!
2/ The fuel bowser at the same airfield, truely wedged under the tail of a company SD3-30. Whilst I protested the best bet was to wait for an engineer to maybe jack the aircraft off the bowser, or even get the rest of the Duty Crew to assist in lifting, crunch and grind of gears, you reverse mate, now it's AOG for sure. Never did find out the insurance answer to that one!
Maybe even than, common sense classes would have been best............
With regard to ground strikes to aircraft, afraid the biggest change needed is honesty by ground staff.
In my 20 ish years in Ops, the most common response from 'Ramp Management' from catering to handlers after a ground strike has been 'he's suspended till we sack him tomorrow'
Just does not foster honesty from the poor sod at the wheel. I dont, and I am sure most, if not all Crew dont want that attitude on the ramp.
Nudge, tickle, dent, rip the skin of an aircraft or not be sure, tell someone and let the engineers decide. Live in fear of the sack, who knows what might happen.
Educate the Managers would be a big improvement.
BTW, had one tickled, somewhat nudged at EGxx some time ago. Airfield Ops saw the whole thing happen, break lights and all. Airfield Ops reported it to me and vehicle owner. Usual response from vehicle owner, Airfield Ops report, vehicle found to have defective breaks, all before the driver could own up to a ground strike. Vehicle owner back-peddling like mad.
No whitch hunt blame culture for the ramp staff, might not reduce the cost to the industry, but be a good start.
Post edit,
Mind you to educate anyone on the ramp, two sprung to mind over a fag from 88-89
1/ Right in front of the office, watched with witnesses and in awe as an unmarked Luton van rocked a BE90. got security to stop it, backed it up to what was left of the wingtip to hear 'didn't think it mattered, it was only a small one.' On seeing the damage to the van 'what's the Boss gonna say now'
Never did find out the insurance answer to that one!
2/ The fuel bowser at the same airfield, truely wedged under the tail of a company SD3-30. Whilst I protested the best bet was to wait for an engineer to maybe jack the aircraft off the bowser, or even get the rest of the Duty Crew to assist in lifting, crunch and grind of gears, you reverse mate, now it's AOG for sure. Never did find out the insurance answer to that one!
Maybe even than, common sense classes would have been best............
Last edited by boredcounter; 15th Aug 2007 at 01:43. Reason: To add
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ramp is under so much pressure to turn a/c round mistakes and accidents are unfortunately going to happen. I often see a/c approach a stand that has not been checked for FOD and no parking guidance switched on. However a/c commanders are under the same pressure and more often than not will simply proceed without guidance and without any knowledge that the area has been checked.
Speeding is also a problem, generally caused again by the requirement of a mega quick turnround.
Speeding is also a problem, generally caused again by the requirement of a mega quick turnround.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
Im new here and i myself work as a ramp agent at a busy 'London' airport. Ive been working in the industry for eleven years now and have seen some crazy sights out on the ramp!
As afew people have said already, the main problem is that most airlines want a 20/25 minute turnaround and this puts some pressure on the boys (and girls) working around the a/c.
In general, if you keep your ears and eyes open and never take anything for granted out on the ramp, your have a safe and speedy turnaround! But its the fellow workers who think they know it all and then drive steps into the wing, or pull GPU's out of the a/c and rip a hole in the side!!
Showing off seems to be a big cause of accidents! Ive seem afew tug drivers push a/c back in 3rd gear to show how fast they can push only to see them break n/w's and tow bars e.t.c.... Its not needed really is it.
People seem to forget they have been trusted with millions of pounds worth of a/c.
Anyway, thats my 10 pence worth
Im new here and i myself work as a ramp agent at a busy 'London' airport. Ive been working in the industry for eleven years now and have seen some crazy sights out on the ramp!
As afew people have said already, the main problem is that most airlines want a 20/25 minute turnaround and this puts some pressure on the boys (and girls) working around the a/c.
In general, if you keep your ears and eyes open and never take anything for granted out on the ramp, your have a safe and speedy turnaround! But its the fellow workers who think they know it all and then drive steps into the wing, or pull GPU's out of the a/c and rip a hole in the side!!
Showing off seems to be a big cause of accidents! Ive seem afew tug drivers push a/c back in 3rd gear to show how fast they can push only to see them break n/w's and tow bars e.t.c.... Its not needed really is it.
People seem to forget they have been trusted with millions of pounds worth of a/c.
Anyway, thats my 10 pence worth
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cape Town
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few months agao on LTU pushback the park brake was still on. Tug driver misreads the ground engineers signal and pushes back...Snap. A long delay was the result 
.
.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routair you said "People seem to forget they have been trusted with millions of pounds worth of a/c" .I have worked on the ramp for 20 years and am fully aware that I have been responsible for a multi-million pound a/c ,hundreds of lives and a few hundred tons of fuel ,however,employers seem to think that this responsibility is worth between 5 and 7 pounds per hour which is lower than some cleaning or checkout jobs pay.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Between EGAA, EGAC & the wilds of England
Age: 39
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to avoid getting run down by Servisair maniacs driving company vehicles like they're at Le Mans instead of STN.
You know who you are!!
You know who you are!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Racasanman (blue tinged) & the rest
Ramp awareness is a priority as we all know. Back in the days when places (in the UK) like LGW, BHX, MAN etc., were very busy if we had more than 30 movements per day. As we spent all our time involved in other aspects of the operation, just the ramp (marshaling, steps, honey cart, pot water, tug, gpu, bulk loading etc) got our attention most all the time. After that most of us went back to other duties. Things have now changed. I agree with "Racasanman" ( how many people have had a racasan shower?), ramp/ground ops staff are under valued, under paid, but does that give them a reason not to be as professional as they should be proud of being. If not ,get rid of them, they can be/will be a blight on the industry.
FYI, I was the best honeycart man LGW ever, in the mid 60s, within 3 years I was in NBO running an operation!
Who's nicked the chocks, Ace Freighters can buy the beers!
FYI, I was the best honeycart man LGW ever, in the mid 60s, within 3 years I was in NBO running an operation!
Who's nicked the chocks, Ace Freighters can buy the beers!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBeats - going back to your original question.
Ground damage and the challenges for ramp handling.
The challenge for Ramp Handling - Money & Time. Simple as that.
Why?
Airlines have driven the cost of ramp handling down significantly over the last 5-7 years.
This leads to some fairly definitive conditions:
GH companies now have to employ individuals on:
- the lowest pay structure thay can
- the tightest rostered hours as they can manage
- minimum length contracts to meet the ebb and flow of an airport's flight programme.
The results of this employment strategy:
- not getting the calibre of employee (very generalistic as I know of loads of very good, hard working and absolutely honest ramp workers)
- there is no longer any time for mentoring, tutoring or whateve the PC term is now; the guys and gals come in, do the work and go. There is very little down time for them to learn from the experienced guys around.
Low revenues also mean that the GH companies have reduced their GSE replacement programmes, in some cases to almost nil. This means that the GSE on the ramp is older, less reliable and puts the whole operation under pressure.
Low revenues also mean that the GH companies have had to look at reducuing training time (time = money) and most now deliver significantly less training that they did 7 years ago even though the requirements for driving and security have increased; that means that even less is spent on the functional training of the ramp worker.
Airports have got busier, stand pressure causes reduced space (eg. winglets added to B737's increases their width but stand spacing does not change. There are many airports that now operate stand clearances (even though they are legal) that would not have been considered a few years ago.
Time pressure.
Whereas I do not believe that the LCC model significantly increases risk of ground damage - there are usually fewer GSE items around the aircraft - time pressure has. This comes in the form of airline staff protecting their b*ms and their OTP bonuses and GH management fighting penalties for ground delays.
I STRONGLY dispute the opinion that most ramp workers would not report any ground damage due to the threat of being fired. I would concede that, at certain airports and within certain GH companies, their handling of ground damage leads a lot to be desired. The Alaskan Airlines incident when ground damage was not reported has been used by most of the companies as a good example of why you MUST report.
Just my view, not claiming that it is right!
GH
Ground damage and the challenges for ramp handling.
The challenge for Ramp Handling - Money & Time. Simple as that.
Why?
Airlines have driven the cost of ramp handling down significantly over the last 5-7 years.
This leads to some fairly definitive conditions:
GH companies now have to employ individuals on:
- the lowest pay structure thay can
- the tightest rostered hours as they can manage
- minimum length contracts to meet the ebb and flow of an airport's flight programme.
The results of this employment strategy:
- not getting the calibre of employee (very generalistic as I know of loads of very good, hard working and absolutely honest ramp workers)
- there is no longer any time for mentoring, tutoring or whateve the PC term is now; the guys and gals come in, do the work and go. There is very little down time for them to learn from the experienced guys around.
Low revenues also mean that the GH companies have reduced their GSE replacement programmes, in some cases to almost nil. This means that the GSE on the ramp is older, less reliable and puts the whole operation under pressure.
Low revenues also mean that the GH companies have had to look at reducuing training time (time = money) and most now deliver significantly less training that they did 7 years ago even though the requirements for driving and security have increased; that means that even less is spent on the functional training of the ramp worker.
Airports have got busier, stand pressure causes reduced space (eg. winglets added to B737's increases their width but stand spacing does not change. There are many airports that now operate stand clearances (even though they are legal) that would not have been considered a few years ago.
Time pressure.
Whereas I do not believe that the LCC model significantly increases risk of ground damage - there are usually fewer GSE items around the aircraft - time pressure has. This comes in the form of airline staff protecting their b*ms and their OTP bonuses and GH management fighting penalties for ground delays.
I STRONGLY dispute the opinion that most ramp workers would not report any ground damage due to the threat of being fired. I would concede that, at certain airports and within certain GH companies, their handling of ground damage leads a lot to be desired. The Alaskan Airlines incident when ground damage was not reported has been used by most of the companies as a good example of why you MUST report.
Just my view, not claiming that it is right!
GH
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mbeats
LCC - Low Cost Carrier. FR EZY
The damands of ramp handling a LCC normally differ from a legacy carrier operating a similar size aircraft.
Legacy carriers (BA, LH, AF, KL etc.) traditionally, and I accept that many have changed and do not require full servicing on every rotation, received more services when on the ground than a LCC.
The differences are that LCC do not carry cargo; have no interline baggage so there is no separation at the aircraft side; rarely receive cleaning or catering othr than night stop and maybe 01 top up during the day. However, whereas the legacy carriers would allow 45-60 minutes on the ground the LCC seek 25-35. So 'time' becomes a bigger factor rather than the number of servicing vehicles.
One of the more realistic comparisons is between LCC and the charter market utilising similar aircraft. The charter market will clean and cater (in some form) on every rotation. Their ground time will be 45 - 60 minutes.
A LCC operating UK to Spanish destination e.g. APG will have a similar bag load as the charrter operator but want a turn in anything up to 50% of the time. hence, potentially, time pressure = mistakes = ground damage.
I've often wondered if the service companies' employees have as many accidents in their cars as they seem to have on the ramps of this world.
Airlines, themselves, must take a fair share of responsibility as whilst they will say that 'safety' is their 'Number 1 priority' they measure and penalise their service providers not on safety; but on their On Time Performance. Very few airlines do anything positive to promote safety above 'on time' on the ramp. They talk it, but rarely deliver a consistent and positive message to the teams of the service providers. I've actually witnessed senior airline managers asking 3rd party employees to cut corners to make up time to get the aircraft out on time. When challenged they had no concept of the underlying message that they were relaying i.e. that it is OK to break the rules to get the aircraft out on time.
No wonder we have an industry problem.
GH
LCC - Low Cost Carrier. FR EZY
The damands of ramp handling a LCC normally differ from a legacy carrier operating a similar size aircraft.
Legacy carriers (BA, LH, AF, KL etc.) traditionally, and I accept that many have changed and do not require full servicing on every rotation, received more services when on the ground than a LCC.
The differences are that LCC do not carry cargo; have no interline baggage so there is no separation at the aircraft side; rarely receive cleaning or catering othr than night stop and maybe 01 top up during the day. However, whereas the legacy carriers would allow 45-60 minutes on the ground the LCC seek 25-35. So 'time' becomes a bigger factor rather than the number of servicing vehicles.
One of the more realistic comparisons is between LCC and the charter market utilising similar aircraft. The charter market will clean and cater (in some form) on every rotation. Their ground time will be 45 - 60 minutes.
A LCC operating UK to Spanish destination e.g. APG will have a similar bag load as the charrter operator but want a turn in anything up to 50% of the time. hence, potentially, time pressure = mistakes = ground damage.
I've often wondered if the service companies' employees have as many accidents in their cars as they seem to have on the ramps of this world.
Airlines, themselves, must take a fair share of responsibility as whilst they will say that 'safety' is their 'Number 1 priority' they measure and penalise their service providers not on safety; but on their On Time Performance. Very few airlines do anything positive to promote safety above 'on time' on the ramp. They talk it, but rarely deliver a consistent and positive message to the teams of the service providers. I've actually witnessed senior airline managers asking 3rd party employees to cut corners to make up time to get the aircraft out on time. When challenged they had no concept of the underlying message that they were relaying i.e. that it is OK to break the rules to get the aircraft out on time.
No wonder we have an industry problem.
GH
Join Date: May 2007
Location: US
Age: 44
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would concede that, at certain airports and within certain GH companies, their handling of ground damage leads a lot to be desired. The Alaskan Airlines incident when ground damage was not reported has been used by most of the companies as a good example of why you MUST report.
I would tend to agree. We need to keep up the pressure.
Christopher Freville, Alberta, CA
I would tend to agree. We need to keep up the pressure.
Christopher Freville, Alberta, CA
